-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hey Tintin, thanks a lot for bringing up this question. It's a pity that there is not much discussion about Hinduism even among Christians in India. I am a beginner in this research project, so I will share with you what little I know.
Ancient Hinduism did not even start off as a religion per se. It started off as man worshipping the 5 elements of nature - earth, water, fire, wind and sound. Slowly it came to be influenced through folklore and interactions with other religions to form Hinduism as we see it today. Today, Hinduism has 330 million gods and is followed by over a billion people. Rachel20 has explained much about this in detail in her posts.
One alternative explanation for the origin of Hinduism is given by those who claim that some gods in Hinduism originated from Christianity. According to them, when the gospel was brought to India the disciples of St. Thomas created small plays to teach the various Biblical truths. This is a social activity called 'street-play', which is still active in many villages today. The disciples created characters and used street-plays to carry the gospel to the illiterate masses. These street-plays and characters were passed down from generation to generation and formed part of the local folklore. Later, they also became some of the gods in present-day Hinduism. There are many proponents of this theory. In fact, there are some former temple priests who today worship Jesus but only worship Him through reciting the slokas ('sloka' - verse) in the Hindu scripts. I don't know if this is credible or not, but I thought I must share it with you.
My hypothesis is that the ancient languages of Tamil and Sanskrit have some connection with Judaism and subsequently, with Christianity. Whether the connection is significant or not, I don't know but here are some interesting points -
1. There are many Sanskrit words used in the Old Testament. For example, Numbers 21:8 speaks of mentions the word "Nachash" for a serpent. The etymology of this word comes from Sanskrit, which is "Nag", meaning snake/serpent.
2. This is part of my ongoing research, so it is only a hypothesis. But, some of the characters in the Bible have similar names (and probably genealogy/function) with certain characters in Hinduism too. Just as Judaism holds Abraham as the father of their faith, Hindus hold Brahma as the 'Origin, the One from whom everything began' (paraphrased). If you look at the etymology of the word Brahma, it comes from "Brah" meaning, 'to grow or multiply in number'. Brahma is called the 'father of all men and exalted of all gods'. Similarly, there are other characters which can be compared between our Scriptures and Hinduism.
3. Tamil also has had some connection with Israel in the early days. For example, the verse I Kings 10:22 uses the word "Thukkim" for peacock. This is the same word for peacock, as in the Tamil language. Furthermore, some scholars believe that the land of Ophir was in India.
In short, I believe that Hinduism is a religion devoted to the "Unknown God". They follow various practices and customs that are very similar to Judaism (animal sacrifices, smearing of ashes, etc.), but they don't know the intention behind each practice and custom. Perhaps God would raise up a scholar who can prove that Hinduism is indeed a more ritualistic version of Judaism. That would pave the way for many Hindus to come to Christ.
Ancient Hinduism did not even start off as a religion per se. It started off as man worshipping the 5 elements of nature - earth, water, fire, wind and sound. Slowly it came to be influenced through folklore and interactions with other religions to form Hinduism as we see it today. Today, Hinduism has 330 million gods and is followed by over a billion people. Rachel20 has explained much about this in detail in her posts.
One alternative explanation for the origin of Hinduism is given by those who claim that some gods in Hinduism originated from Christianity. According to them, when the gospel was brought to India the disciples of St. Thomas created small plays to teach the various Biblical truths. This is a social activity called 'street-play', which is still active in many villages today. The disciples created characters and used street-plays to carry the gospel to the illiterate masses. These street-plays and characters were passed down from generation to generation and formed part of the local folklore. Later, they also became some of the gods in present-day Hinduism. There are many proponents of this theory. In fact, there are some former temple priests who today worship Jesus but only worship Him through reciting the slokas ('sloka' - verse) in the Hindu scripts. I don't know if this is credible or not, but I thought I must share it with you.
My hypothesis is that the ancient languages of Tamil and Sanskrit have some connection with Judaism and subsequently, with Christianity. Whether the connection is significant or not, I don't know but here are some interesting points -
1. There are many Sanskrit words used in the Old Testament. For example, Numbers 21:8 speaks of mentions the word "Nachash" for a serpent. The etymology of this word comes from Sanskrit, which is "Nag", meaning snake/serpent.
2. This is part of my ongoing research, so it is only a hypothesis. But, some of the characters in the Bible have similar names (and probably genealogy/function) with certain characters in Hinduism too. Just as Judaism holds Abraham as the father of their faith, Hindus hold Brahma as the 'Origin, the One from whom everything began' (paraphrased). If you look at the etymology of the word Brahma, it comes from "Brah" meaning, 'to grow or multiply in number'. Brahma is called the 'father of all men and exalted of all gods'. Similarly, there are other characters which can be compared between our Scriptures and Hinduism.
3. Tamil also has had some connection with Israel in the early days. For example, the verse I Kings 10:22 uses the word "Thukkim" for peacock. This is the same word for peacock, as in the Tamil language. Furthermore, some scholars believe that the land of Ophir was in India.
In short, I believe that Hinduism is a religion devoted to the "Unknown God". They follow various practices and customs that are very similar to Judaism (animal sacrifices, smearing of ashes, etc.), but they don't know the intention behind each practice and custom. Perhaps God would raise up a scholar who can prove that Hinduism is indeed a more ritualistic version of Judaism. That would pave the way for many Hindus to come to Christ.
T
Roh_Chris, thank you so much! That was brilliant. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the apostles/disciples etc. were incorporated into Hinduism. I mean, the ancient European cultures (amongst others) practiced ancestor worship and corrupted understandings of the one true God as Zeus. Some of the ancestors they revered were children of Noah eg. Japheth and his offspring. The Brahmin and Abraham parallels are also very cool. This sort of thing would make for an excellent comparison chart. Between your post and Rachel's I have much more to go on. Thank you!
I have in my To Read list a book by Rodney Stark called, Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief. I've browsed through the book and it seems very interesting, but it makes one huge mistake. The author appears to be coming from the common misunderstanding amongst sociologists that paganism and many gods eventually led to monotheism and one god. When, from a Judeo/Christian standpoint, we would understand that all people believed in the one true God and then following the tower of Babel dispersal, the family groups went their separate ways, to the 'four corners' of the earth and established their own beliefs. Some stayed true to the one true God and others didn't. Some stayed true to Him for a very long time (for example: the Chinese people) and others abandoned those beliefs early on. But beliefs in one true God, over time, gave rise to beliefs in many gods. So, Stark's book may have good information, but his presuppositions and therefore, his conclusions will have errors.
Between your post and Rachel's I have much more to go on. Thank you!I have in my To Read list a book by Rodney Stark called, Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief. I've browsed through the book and it seems very interesting, but it makes one huge mistake. The author appears to be coming from the common misunderstanding amongst sociologists that paganism and many gods eventually led to monotheism and one god. When, from a Judeo/Christian standpoint, we would understand that all people believed in the one true God and then following the tower of Babel dispersal, the family groups went their separate ways, to the 'four corners' of the earth and established their own beliefs. Some stayed true to the one true God and others didn't. Some stayed true to Him for a very long time (for example: the Chinese people) and others abandoned those beliefs early on. But beliefs in one true God, over time, gave rise to beliefs in many gods. So, Stark's book may have good information, but his presuppositions and therefore, his conclusions will have errors.
Last edited by a moderator:
As an Indian who's studies Indian religion and as someone who lives in close proximity to this tradition (or should I say the multiple traditions that form Hinduism) I am tempted to respond.
To begin with nearly 90% of the Hindus have no interaction with their Holy texts nor do they seem to have any concrete theology. The religion functions as a support system during various stages of their lives but they have no liturgical connection with these rituals.
Most Hindu traditions are folk traditions that incorporate other values so easily into their system. You can find Hindus really devoted to Jesus or Mother Mary and still remain Hindu. So in this way it binds them to their community. The various gods represent various guardian deities of clans and they once were historical people who's actions during their time saved their people. The community in return never ceases to remember them in their lives.
The dominant tradition within the Hindu way of life that is associated with power and Empire is the Sanskritic tradition and it is because of this form we have the caste system in India. The right wing Hindu fundamentalists who are in power right now seek to "Sanskritize" India through their whole propaganda of "Motherland" and Hinduism being associated with being Indian.
Apart from Hinduism we have Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as religions that originated in India. Unlike what most people think Hindus are not dogmatically connected with Hinduism but find the notion of conversion to another way of life alien to their way of being. So can we have a Christian Church in India without the Western garb? Can we have Christianity outside the caste system? These are the real telling concerns of the Church in India and there is still a struggle to gift the Church with Indianness (whatever that is).
I'd like to close with a quote from the Upanishands
Lead me from the untruth to the truth.
Lead me from darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality
Shanti Shanti Shanti
P.S: This is the song they play after the Matrix Revolutions ends.
To begin with nearly 90% of the Hindus have no interaction with their Holy texts nor do they seem to have any concrete theology. The religion functions as a support system during various stages of their lives but they have no liturgical connection with these rituals.
Most Hindu traditions are folk traditions that incorporate other values so easily into their system. You can find Hindus really devoted to Jesus or Mother Mary and still remain Hindu. So in this way it binds them to their community. The various gods represent various guardian deities of clans and they once were historical people who's actions during their time saved their people. The community in return never ceases to remember them in their lives.
The dominant tradition within the Hindu way of life that is associated with power and Empire is the Sanskritic tradition and it is because of this form we have the caste system in India. The right wing Hindu fundamentalists who are in power right now seek to "Sanskritize" India through their whole propaganda of "Motherland" and Hinduism being associated with being Indian.
Apart from Hinduism we have Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism as religions that originated in India. Unlike what most people think Hindus are not dogmatically connected with Hinduism but find the notion of conversion to another way of life alien to their way of being. So can we have a Christian Church in India without the Western garb? Can we have Christianity outside the caste system? These are the real telling concerns of the Church in India and there is still a struggle to gift the Church with Indianness (whatever that is).
I'd like to close with a quote from the Upanishands
Lead me from the untruth to the truth.
Lead me from darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality
Shanti Shanti Shanti
P.S: This is the song they play after the Matrix Revolutions ends.
J
Hinduism belief is we are all living in a dream of Brahma? when ever i dwell on this idea to long i feel like i have had a few drinks.
i think the Vedic texts originated in the Indus Valley culture which is one of the most ancient cultures. Allen Watts does some good philosophical lectures on Hinduism and Buddhism.
i think the Vedic texts originated in the Indus Valley culture which is one of the most ancient cultures. Allen Watts does some good philosophical lectures on Hinduism and Buddhism.
I disagree with the very modern amalgamation of three different traditions Vaishavism, Saivism and of course non-dualism (realizing the self which is Brahman). Christian theologians did pick up some strands from Theistic and other forms of dualistic (and non-dualistic schools of thought). Adi Shankara referred to the Absolute Brahman as Satchitanananda (And loads of Indian theologians picked up on that and understood it this way: Sat-Truth-Father, Chit-Knowledge-Son, Ananda-Bliss from union-The Holy Spirit).
It is interesting to note that there were "religious wars" in India as it happened in Europe. There are reports of Buddhist and Jain monks being slaughtered by kings who were converted to either Saivism or Vaishnavism. In fact Saivites and Vaishnavites also have a history of gruesome bloodshed.
"Hinduism" is a "foreign" construct, the etymology of the word is Persian who deemed the inhabitants of the people dwelling east of the river "Indus" as "Hindus". Later after the Muslims arrived the clubbed all the non-muslim inhabitants as "infidels" and did not care for the diversity within. Later the British tried to understand the "phenomena" in India in terms of the monotheistic framework. This history contributed to the rise of right-wing Hindu fundamentalism and this is repressed within their discourse of their "religion" being the religion of the land.
P.S: I must admit behind this objective veneer, I have scant respect for that way of life. Hindus do not respect knowledge and have scant disregard for the other. They keep their homes in by thrashing their neighborhoods and their communities. The social practice of caste is decadent, racist and repulsive but it is held in high regard by the "elite". They lack vision and believe in all forms of crude superstitions (like the puja-room in my office and my boss attempting to incorporate astrology into a hiring tool). In villages, underneath the very "functional" "hospitable" external reality, they thread upon lower castes and they have very few schools because education never transforms the mind but is used as a means to an end- get more power and money. In short Hinduism is a decadent way of life that needs to be outgrown for the sake of everything sacred in this planet. I am sick of conversations revolving around the "superiority" of the Vedic system and the awesomeness of cows.
It is interesting to note that there were "religious wars" in India as it happened in Europe. There are reports of Buddhist and Jain monks being slaughtered by kings who were converted to either Saivism or Vaishnavism. In fact Saivites and Vaishnavites also have a history of gruesome bloodshed.
"Hinduism" is a "foreign" construct, the etymology of the word is Persian who deemed the inhabitants of the people dwelling east of the river "Indus" as "Hindus". Later after the Muslims arrived the clubbed all the non-muslim inhabitants as "infidels" and did not care for the diversity within. Later the British tried to understand the "phenomena" in India in terms of the monotheistic framework. This history contributed to the rise of right-wing Hindu fundamentalism and this is repressed within their discourse of their "religion" being the religion of the land.
P.S: I must admit behind this objective veneer, I have scant respect for that way of life. Hindus do not respect knowledge and have scant disregard for the other. They keep their homes in by thrashing their neighborhoods and their communities. The social practice of caste is decadent, racist and repulsive but it is held in high regard by the "elite". They lack vision and believe in all forms of crude superstitions (like the puja-room in my office and my boss attempting to incorporate astrology into a hiring tool). In villages, underneath the very "functional" "hospitable" external reality, they thread upon lower castes and they have very few schools because education never transforms the mind but is used as a means to an end- get more power and money. In short Hinduism is a decadent way of life that needs to be outgrown for the sake of everything sacred in this planet. I am sick of conversations revolving around the "superiority" of the Vedic system and the awesomeness of cows.
I disagree with the very modern amalgamation of three different traditions Vaishavism, Saivism and of course non-dualism (realizing the self which is Brahman) as having anything to do with the Holy Trinity. Christian theologians did pick up some strands from Theistic and other forms of dualistic (and non-dualistic schools of thought) to talk about the Trinity. Adi Shankara referred to the Absolute Brahman as Satchitanananda (And loads of Indian theologians picked up on that and understood it this way: Sat-Truth-Father, Chit-Knowledge-Son, Ananda-Bliss from union-The Holy Spirit).
It is interesting to note that there were "religious wars" in India as it happened in Europe. There are reports of Buddhist and Jain monks being slaughtered by kings who were converted to either Saivism or Vaishnavism. In fact Saivites and Vaishnavites also have a history of gruesome bloodshed.
"Hinduism" is a "foreign" construct, the etymology of the word is Persian and they deemed the inhabitants of the people dwelling east of the river "Indus" as "Hindus".After the Muslims arrived, they clubbed all the non-muslim inhabitants as "infidels" and did not care for the diversity within. Later the British tried to understand the "phenomena" in India in terms of their monotheistic framework. This history contributed to the rise of right-wing Hindu fundamentalism this is dimension is repressed within their discourse of "Hindutva" being the religion of the land.
P.S: I must admit behind this objective veneer, I have scant respect for that way of life. Hindus do not respect knowledge and have scant disregard for the other. They keep their homes in by thrashing their neighborhoods and their communities. The social practice of caste is decadent, racist and repulsive but it is held in high regard by the "elite". They lack vision and believe in all forms of crude superstitions (like the puja-room in my office and my boss attempting to incorporate astrology into a hiring tool). In villages, underneath the very "functional" "hospitable" external reality, they thread upon lower castes and they have very few schools because education never transforms the mind but is used as a means to an end- get more power and money. In short Hinduism is a decadent way of life that needs to be outgrown for the sake of everything sacred in this planet. I am sick of conversations revolving around the "superiority" of the Vedic system and the awesomeness of cows. "Ghar wapsai", no tyvm !!!
P.P.S: Gandhi was racist and did all kinds of weird stuff he was famous because he upheld the caste system and the Hindu way of life. If you read Arundathi Roy, you can find how Gandhi was a real hypocrite.
It is interesting to note that there were "religious wars" in India as it happened in Europe. There are reports of Buddhist and Jain monks being slaughtered by kings who were converted to either Saivism or Vaishnavism. In fact Saivites and Vaishnavites also have a history of gruesome bloodshed.
"Hinduism" is a "foreign" construct, the etymology of the word is Persian and they deemed the inhabitants of the people dwelling east of the river "Indus" as "Hindus".After the Muslims arrived, they clubbed all the non-muslim inhabitants as "infidels" and did not care for the diversity within. Later the British tried to understand the "phenomena" in India in terms of their monotheistic framework. This history contributed to the rise of right-wing Hindu fundamentalism this is dimension is repressed within their discourse of "Hindutva" being the religion of the land.
P.S: I must admit behind this objective veneer, I have scant respect for that way of life. Hindus do not respect knowledge and have scant disregard for the other. They keep their homes in by thrashing their neighborhoods and their communities. The social practice of caste is decadent, racist and repulsive but it is held in high regard by the "elite". They lack vision and believe in all forms of crude superstitions (like the puja-room in my office and my boss attempting to incorporate astrology into a hiring tool). In villages, underneath the very "functional" "hospitable" external reality, they thread upon lower castes and they have very few schools because education never transforms the mind but is used as a means to an end- get more power and money. In short Hinduism is a decadent way of life that needs to be outgrown for the sake of everything sacred in this planet. I am sick of conversations revolving around the "superiority" of the Vedic system and the awesomeness of cows. "Ghar wapsai", no tyvm !!!
P.P.S: Gandhi was racist and did all kinds of weird stuff he was famous because he upheld the caste system and the Hindu way of life. If you read Arundathi Roy, you can find how Gandhi was a real hypocrite.
Well, it all started in a trailer just outside Johnson City, Tennessee.
Uncle Clem came home after a long day of grouse hunting and sat down to listen to his brother, Archibald, weave wild tales about mountain spirits demanding a tribute of living cows and rats from the fine people of Kingsport. If the people of Kingsport failed, said Archie, the spirits would spur on an epidemic of rheumatism.
It wasn't unlike Archie's usual stories. No sir, every night he would go on about some kinda nonsense or other. Usually involving demons, demigods, and a great deity that would take on three forms that stood for the three divisions of Tennessee. Uncle Clem didn't quite understand why the three grand divisions of Tennessee were nicknamed "Brahman, Vishnu, and Shiva" nor could he ever come to reckon why Memphis was considered the creator and Knoxville the destroyer. It done sounded interesting though and made Uncle Clem laugh when he wasn't fixin' to skin his brother alive.
This particular night though, Uncle Clem had himself what educmacated folk call an epiphany: he done convinced Archie that Brahman a.k.a Memphis ordained Uncle Clem, his wife Clemma, and all the children they beget as a caste higher than Archie. Archie was to render unto them his absolute devotion by virtue of their station.
Now Uncle Clem didn't intend for what he said to become a part of a new religion. He just wanted a new way to keep Archie feed'n the hogs at 4 AM. But doggone it, was Archie ever excited.
Archie girded his loins and ran all the way Elizabethton to spread his new found faith. Wyatt of Elizabethton got on the horn with his half-sister, Loretta in Rogersville. Loretta sent a telegraph to Becky Sue in Chattanooga and from there it spread like honey on a biscuit! Why, before you could whittle a small and somewhat rough bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, people was talkin' about it across the great Mississippi and, eventually, the Ganges.
The folks took to callin' themselves "Aryans" on account of the fact some folks mispronounced the name of their new prophet, Archie. Yup.
They reckoned Tennessee was too small, so they got their Henry repeaters, Kentucky long-rifles, and Bowie knives, crossed them yonder Himalayas, and never looked back.
That is how Hinduism started.
Uncle Clem came home after a long day of grouse hunting and sat down to listen to his brother, Archibald, weave wild tales about mountain spirits demanding a tribute of living cows and rats from the fine people of Kingsport. If the people of Kingsport failed, said Archie, the spirits would spur on an epidemic of rheumatism.
It wasn't unlike Archie's usual stories. No sir, every night he would go on about some kinda nonsense or other. Usually involving demons, demigods, and a great deity that would take on three forms that stood for the three divisions of Tennessee. Uncle Clem didn't quite understand why the three grand divisions of Tennessee were nicknamed "Brahman, Vishnu, and Shiva" nor could he ever come to reckon why Memphis was considered the creator and Knoxville the destroyer. It done sounded interesting though and made Uncle Clem laugh when he wasn't fixin' to skin his brother alive.
This particular night though, Uncle Clem had himself what educmacated folk call an epiphany: he done convinced Archie that Brahman a.k.a Memphis ordained Uncle Clem, his wife Clemma, and all the children they beget as a caste higher than Archie. Archie was to render unto them his absolute devotion by virtue of their station.
Now Uncle Clem didn't intend for what he said to become a part of a new religion. He just wanted a new way to keep Archie feed'n the hogs at 4 AM. But doggone it, was Archie ever excited.
Archie girded his loins and ran all the way Elizabethton to spread his new found faith. Wyatt of Elizabethton got on the horn with his half-sister, Loretta in Rogersville. Loretta sent a telegraph to Becky Sue in Chattanooga and from there it spread like honey on a biscuit! Why, before you could whittle a small and somewhat rough bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, people was talkin' about it across the great Mississippi and, eventually, the Ganges.
The folks took to callin' themselves "Aryans" on account of the fact some folks mispronounced the name of their new prophet, Archie. Yup.
They reckoned Tennessee was too small, so they got their Henry repeaters, Kentucky long-rifles, and Bowie knives, crossed them yonder Himalayas, and never looked back.
That is how Hinduism started.
R
Hello my brothers and sisters.
Love be upon you.
The thread with the question where Hinduism came from and how it came to be is a very good thread. To be in the religion scene - that is we all know religion is something that people believe - and can impossibly be proven or unproven.
That is why we must realize that our faith is something we decide. And we can not build on archeology nor historian research.
But just as we must know very well the faith we follow - and study it well. -Not just read it; think about it.
So must we also be prepared to get to know other religions. And the history of religion is my phd.
I can see so many different responses to the original question - I will just get right to the point.
Yes the loonie tunes are there but there are also people with a calm thought. Some of the responses are very interesting and almost all of them have something of truth in it.
I was very happy about the guy that had started his own research and tried to THINK FOR HIMSELF!!
I will try to make this as short as possible - but you know how we phd maniacs can loose our self in our subject.
Well it is so that the theory about the elements is very original but I do not think that is correct -
Aristotle started the great Greek philosophy age - that gave us the most amazing thinkers. He had the theory that the main-elements where; fire, water, air and earth.
But the Veda scriptures are the oldest religious text in the world. As a matter of fact - nobody knows ex. who started the Hinduism - but it is more than 4000 years old. It started long before the pyramids where built.
The thing is that all the Veda scriptures are written in Sanskrit. And that language stands alone amongst all others for it is of a totally different origin. That is the reason so much has been wrongly translated from Sanskrit. I can take an ex. the word: Kerub is used in the bible and is a word from Sanskrit. In the Bible it is made to stand for some sort of angel.
But latter research made by experts in Sanskrit(that is to say the best there are yet) have shown that Kerub means in fact; He who will return-(there is a very big theory connected to this mistranslation).
But we can see the creation of the world is the origin of Hindu -this is what we can read in these ancient Veda books- anything before that is totally unknown to us. Then there where presented the main gods like Khrisna and Visnu and Khali.
But the Brahma is a very complex term. It is written in the Veda scripts that Brahma is the reallity of everything.
The stories of the gods and their interactions are a stage-play that Brahma is making.
There once was a young student of Hindu in India that asked a respected guru; can you make me understand what Brahma is?
The guru took a bowl and filled it with water. Then he took a fistful of salt. He said to the young man; -the water is life, the salt -it is Brahma- then he dropped the salt in to the bowl of water. -We will continue tomorrow- he said calmly.
The next day the student and the guru went to examine the bowl with the water and the salt in it. The guru said; -can you separate the Brahma from the Life? Can you even see a difference?- Then the young man understood.
There is a big majority of geologists that claim there is no religion in the world today that does not originate from Hindu.
But as some of you pointed out their where a lot of other things that got mixed with the Hindu amongst the people later on in time- and the concept of Kahrma came to be. (And there is no INSTANT KAHRMA -that is a song by John Lennon -bless his soul).
There is no way that Hindu comes from Judea because the Veda scriptures are much older than only scroll regarding the old testament or any of the books like the Thora.
But the sad thing that happened also gradually was that the people whom knew the language of Sanskrit became fewer and fewer in numbers. And there came a time when there was no man alive anymore whom could read and write Sanscrit without trouble.
But from Hindu came plenty of other religions and the people of India where not bugging each other for having very diferent belives.
From Hindu came Buddism and there where created many different kinds if Buddism - The best known is Zen - Buddism.
I hope this has helped someone in their quest for answers.
Bless you my brothers and sisters.
RA
Love be upon you.
The thread with the question where Hinduism came from and how it came to be is a very good thread. To be in the religion scene - that is we all know religion is something that people believe - and can impossibly be proven or unproven.
That is why we must realize that our faith is something we decide. And we can not build on archeology nor historian research.
But just as we must know very well the faith we follow - and study it well. -Not just read it; think about it.
So must we also be prepared to get to know other religions. And the history of religion is my phd.
I can see so many different responses to the original question - I will just get right to the point.
Yes the loonie tunes are there but there are also people with a calm thought. Some of the responses are very interesting and almost all of them have something of truth in it.
I was very happy about the guy that had started his own research and tried to THINK FOR HIMSELF!!
I will try to make this as short as possible - but you know how we phd maniacs can loose our self in our subject.
Well it is so that the theory about the elements is very original but I do not think that is correct -
Aristotle started the great Greek philosophy age - that gave us the most amazing thinkers. He had the theory that the main-elements where; fire, water, air and earth.
But the Veda scriptures are the oldest religious text in the world. As a matter of fact - nobody knows ex. who started the Hinduism - but it is more than 4000 years old. It started long before the pyramids where built.
The thing is that all the Veda scriptures are written in Sanskrit. And that language stands alone amongst all others for it is of a totally different origin. That is the reason so much has been wrongly translated from Sanskrit. I can take an ex. the word: Kerub is used in the bible and is a word from Sanskrit. In the Bible it is made to stand for some sort of angel.
But latter research made by experts in Sanskrit(that is to say the best there are yet) have shown that Kerub means in fact; He who will return-(there is a very big theory connected to this mistranslation).
But we can see the creation of the world is the origin of Hindu -this is what we can read in these ancient Veda books- anything before that is totally unknown to us. Then there where presented the main gods like Khrisna and Visnu and Khali.
But the Brahma is a very complex term. It is written in the Veda scripts that Brahma is the reallity of everything.
The stories of the gods and their interactions are a stage-play that Brahma is making.
There once was a young student of Hindu in India that asked a respected guru; can you make me understand what Brahma is?
The guru took a bowl and filled it with water. Then he took a fistful of salt. He said to the young man; -the water is life, the salt -it is Brahma- then he dropped the salt in to the bowl of water. -We will continue tomorrow- he said calmly.
The next day the student and the guru went to examine the bowl with the water and the salt in it. The guru said; -can you separate the Brahma from the Life? Can you even see a difference?- Then the young man understood.
There is a big majority of geologists that claim there is no religion in the world today that does not originate from Hindu.
But as some of you pointed out their where a lot of other things that got mixed with the Hindu amongst the people later on in time- and the concept of Kahrma came to be. (And there is no INSTANT KAHRMA -that is a song by John Lennon -bless his soul).
There is no way that Hindu comes from Judea because the Veda scriptures are much older than only scroll regarding the old testament or any of the books like the Thora.
But the sad thing that happened also gradually was that the people whom knew the language of Sanskrit became fewer and fewer in numbers. And there came a time when there was no man alive anymore whom could read and write Sanscrit without trouble.
But from Hindu came plenty of other religions and the people of India where not bugging each other for having very diferent belives.
From Hindu came Buddism and there where created many different kinds if Buddism - The best known is Zen - Buddism.
I hope this has helped someone in their quest for answers.
Bless you my brothers and sisters.
RA
This sort of thing would make for an excellent comparison chart. Between your post and Rachel's I have much more to go on. Thank you!
Between your post and Rachel's I have much more to go on. Thank you!
This may sound incredible to you, but there are three stories about a certain flood which happened in the early days. The protagonist in each account had a different name but the accounts share a similar storyline - a man who built a large boat to save the species and who had three sons. My reckoning is that the different name was initially used to indicate a different function of the same character just as how we call Jesus as our Lord, Master, Saviour, Healer, Good Shepherd, etc. The three accounts can be found in - Matsya Purana (or, Fish Chronicle) with the protagonist being Satyavarman, the Mahabharata where the protagonist was Vaivasvata and in the third account where it was a deity named Dyaus-Nahusha (some say he is Dionysius or Bacchus).
The first account, mentioned in the Matsya Purana, talks of Satyavarman ("Satya" - Truth/Righteous, "Varman" - Protector) who had three sons Shem, Sham and Jyapeti. It also talks about how Satyavarman cursed Sham for seeing the nakedness of his father. It also talks of the inheritance given to Sham and Jyapeti.
The second account, mentioned in the Mahabharata, describes how the descendants of Adamis and Hevas (Adam and Eve, obviously) became so wicked that Brahma decided to punish everybody. So he ordered Vaivasvata to build a ship for himself and his family. Vaivasvata spent forty days and forty nights inside the ship with his family, along with the seeds of every plant and a pair of every species of animal. Here, Vaivasvata's sons were Manu (for Shem), Nabhanedistha (for Ham) and Yayati (for Japheth).
So, you see that the Hindu scriptures have some incidents which are similar to what we have in the Bible. Nobody can say for sure when Hinduism really started because it is an amalgamation of various influences. There is not even one single proponent of this religion, so that makes its origins more complicated. I am not a credible source on Hinduism, but here is a timeline that I think is plausible -
Ancient worshippers of the 5 elements - around 4,000 B.C. (or even earlier?)
Occurence of Brahma - around 2,500 B.C. (if he is indeed Abraham)
(More additions to their gods thereafter)
Early Sanskrit inscriptions - between 300 B.C. to 150 A.D.
There are two explanations regarding who is Brahma. Some claim that he is the equivalent of God the Father and they say this because, according to the Hindu scriptures, it was Brahma who created the world as we see it today. As per this claim, Brahma was the god of Abraham who was later called Brahman (as in, follower of Brahma). The other explanation (and the one I am leaning towards) is that Brahma is Abraham. I have explained earlier regarding the etymology of the name of Brahma but here is another interesting point. The Hindu scriptures say that Brahma had a wife named Saraswati. Saraswati, according to them, was the step-sister of Brahma. From the Bible, we know that Sarah was the wife of Abraham and was also his step-sister (Genesis 20:12).
Two questions worth pondering are - The Bible states that while Abraham was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away to the east (Genesis 25:12). Could it be that there are some in India whose ancestry could be traced to Abraham? Another question is - Why did St. Thomas come to India to preach the gospel? Was it just coincidence or did he come to preach the gospel to the 'other' descendants of Abraham?
T
Excellent information, guys. Thanks so much!
Roh_Chris, another fascinating post from you (but I do question your timeline).
Ancient worshippers of the 5 elements - around 4,000 B.C. (or even earlier?)
Occurrence of Brahma - around 2,500 B.C. (if he is indeed Abraham)
(More additions to their gods thereafter)
Early Sanskrit inscriptions - between 300 B.C. to 150 A.D.
The Bible records just over 4,000 years of human history (if you don't include some of Acts and Revelation - which are ongoing and include the 2,000 years since Jesus came to earth as a man and to the time He returns a second time, to put things right).
The Great Flood happened around 1656 years from creation (although here there's a leeway of about 50 years), so anything we have today (bar the early chapters of Genesis) has to be from the post-Flood world and most likely after the tower of Babel incident (one hundred or so years after the Great Flood). The ancient worshippers of the five elements may have begun their religion not long after that, but that would still put us at something more like 2300BC. Abraham lived around 2100BC (I think that's right), so the occurrence of Brahma could be from around that time period. Your estimation of between 300BC and 150AD, for the early Sanskrit inscriptions, sounds about right. Sorry for being a goober.
Roh_Chris, another fascinating post from you (but I do question your timeline).
Ancient worshippers of the 5 elements - around 4,000 B.C. (or even earlier?)
Occurrence of Brahma - around 2,500 B.C. (if he is indeed Abraham)
(More additions to their gods thereafter)
Early Sanskrit inscriptions - between 300 B.C. to 150 A.D.
The Bible records just over 4,000 years of human history (if you don't include some of Acts and Revelation - which are ongoing and include the 2,000 years since Jesus came to earth as a man and to the time He returns a second time, to put things right).
The Great Flood happened around 1656 years from creation (although here there's a leeway of about 50 years), so anything we have today (bar the early chapters of Genesis) has to be from the post-Flood world and most likely after the tower of Babel incident (one hundred or so years after the Great Flood). The ancient worshippers of the five elements may have begun their religion not long after that, but that would still put us at something more like 2300BC. Abraham lived around 2100BC (I think that's right), so the occurrence of Brahma could be from around that time period. Your estimation of between 300BC and 150AD, for the early Sanskrit inscriptions, sounds about right. Sorry for being a goober.
Last edited by a moderator: